you still cant answer my question though. What does someone have to gain by creating such a hoax? So when the presenter films the earth through various windows, that must be some picture plastered on the window. Or when he films through the window giving a clear image of exterior ISS. Also he films himself floating. You should really watch all of them. Its quite fascinating.

Why dont you focus on more important conspiracy issues that effect our everyday life. Help make people aware of more important issues such as the bilderbergs, the federal reserve bank, and corporate take over of our country.

I don't think that when the presenter films the Earth or the exterior of the ISS through a window it is a 'picture plastered on the window'. Have you not heard of special effects? There are dozens of ways of achieving this effect. Try watching a film like 'Space Cowboys'.

Tell me where exactly and on which film you see the presenter floating and I'll have a look at it.

You ask what someone has to gain from creating such a hoax? I explained all this in my original post. Its a Nazi Trojan Horse.

The reason why I don't whine on about the Bilderbergers and the Federal Reserve is because I don't personally subscribe to these particular conspiracy theories. I think they deflect attention away from the real issue like corruption in the US government via the Mafia and Nazi sympathizers.

Don't forget some conspiracy theories may be manufactured by the government to discredit the genuine theories and others could well have been manufactured by the conspirators themselves to act as a smoke screen to hide what is really going on.

ummm what about the various times he films outside and shows the exterior of the ISS. Just remember that you have made yourself believe this conspiracy theory, so any proof presented to you will just be denied or ignored.

You are free to express whatever you believe, and i thank you for sharing it. The facts you have presented are interesting and it is quite possible that this is a hoax. Since we all know that the first moon landing was staged.

Here are some times that i recommend investigating in those clips
6:55 video1
7:10 video3
:35 and 2:30 and 5:00 video4

anything specific that looks out of the ordinary please share. Also, it is a weak argument to simply say these videos are fake and nothing special effects cant do. Give specific reasons so i can watch them and see for myself. If you can prove that these videos are fake, it will give great support to your theory

ummm what about the various times he films outside and shows the exterior of the ISS. Just remember that you have made yourself believe this conspiracy theory, so any proof presented to you will just be denied or ignored.

You are free to express whatever you believe, and i thank you for sharing it. The facts you have presented are interesting and it is quite possible that this is a hoax. Since we all know that the first moon landing was staged.

Here are some times that i recommend investigating in those clips
6:55 video1
7:10 video3
:35 and 2:30 and 5:00 video4

anything specific that looks out of the ordinary please share. Also, it is a weak argument to simply say these videos are fake and nothing special effects cant do. Give specific reasons so i can watch them and see for myself. If you can prove that these videos are fake, it will give great support to your theory

I am not an expert on special effects and could not go into the detail you ask. However I would claim that I don't really need to.

In science fiction films you never believe that what you are watching actually happened in reality because you were told in advance that the whole thing is a gargantuan work of fiction.

And yet you can actually see these things happening with your own eyes.

What I am saying is is that the special effects used by NASA aren't any better than the ones used in science fiction movies.

Its because you've been told that what NASA produces is real that you end up seeing that it is real.

As for your video clips:

So you can see the Earth and parts of the exterior of the ISS through a window. But what does this prove? We have already seen the Earth and the exterior of the ISS during space walks. Can you tell me what difference the window makes?

That leaves one clip remaining:

In Video 3, 7:10 it is not really clear what is going on in this rather cramped environment. A pipe flexes from side to side but this effect can easily be achieved using the appropriate flexible materials.

I'd just like to add a note as to how bad the UV light is outside the Earth's atmosphere.

NASA scientists would claim that the UV light in space is so diffuse it doesn't really do anything. However according to the laws of quantum physics any effect is cumulative with time.

Using a speadsheet created graph based upon the Einstein-Bose equation for blackbody radiation which was over 10,000 lines long, I calculated that the intensity of UV light powerful enough to break the Si-O bond in glass was 0.04 W/m2.

This sounds like nothing but consider the following:

A watt is one joule per second. So after one hour each square metre would receive 144 joules, after a day 3,456 joules, and after a week 24,192 joules.

In other words something is bound to happen to that glass surface after the space of a day or so.

"NASA scientists would claim that the UV light in space is so diffuse it doesn't really do anything. However according to the laws of quantum physics any effect is cumulative with time."

I'm no physicist but sure they simply mean that UV light has no effect over any sizeable time frame, like 10,000 years...?

Surely what your proposing only works if each UV photon has a additive effect to the previous....which isn't the case? Instead each UV photon to hit the glass acts as if it was the first and so no damage is done.

"NASA scientists would claim that the UV light in space is so diffuse it doesn't really do anything. However according to the laws of quantum physics any effect is cumulative with time."

I'm no physicist but sure they simply mean that UV light has no effect over any sizeable time frame, like 10,000 years...?

Surely what your proposing only works if each UV photon has a additive effect to the previous....which isn't the case? Instead each UV photon to hit the glass acts as if it was the first and so no damage is done.

No.

On a quantum level each photon of sufficient energy has a probability of striking the electron shell of the chemical bond in question and breaking that bond.

Once that happens the bond is permanently broken.

Each and every single photon striking the glass surface has the chance of breaking a single chemical bond.

Hmmm, your probably right but I'm not convinced. What your saying makes sense but then you assume each or any photon has sufficient energy? How do you know what energy the UV photons from the sun have at the distance of our planet?

galexanders first post gave me a idea if nasa dident think of it yet
a space station. with everything in it so anyone can live in it for a long time. even the rest of a life. what if this type of space station had rockets or somthing on it so it can travel in space. imagion a space station the size of new york. exploreing space. like star treck . sending back data to ground controll.

Hmmm, your probably right but I'm not convinced. What your saying makes sense but then you assume each or any photon has sufficient energy? How do you know what energy the UV photons from the sun have at the distance of our planet?

Could you explain why UV and not the rest of the light spectrum?

superted, you appear to be a slow learner.

I only included in my calculation the WAVELENGTHS OF UV LIGHT POSSESSING THE REQUIRED PHOTON ENERGY TO BREAK THE Si-O BOND IN GLASS.

As I said quite clearly in my first post on this matter:

Quote:

I calculated that the intensity of UV light powerful enough to break the Si-O bond in glass was 0.04 W/m2.